Talk:Legacy OpenGL

Not happy with page

Personally I'm still far from being happy with this page. Does anyone have a problem with summarizing deprecated features as is done in the 3.0 spec in the corresponding sections? Another thing I really can't understand is why people equate immediate mode to legacy OpenGL. Also, the reasons why one should use modern OpenGL are vague and incomprehensive. We should provide precise and convincing examples and offer a real explanation of the matter. Any content-related objections? thokra (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2012 (PDT)

You can summarize it if you wish, but really, it'd just be a copy-and-paste job from the spec. Also, it would be a very large section, so it would be best if it were moved to the bottom.

As for why "immediate mode" is equated to "legacy OpenGL", that's because it's been removed from core OpenGL 3.1 and above. That's how this page defines "legacy": the stuff that's been removed. As for "precise and convincing examples", it's up to each individual person to decide what is "precise and convincing". Alfonse (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2012 (PDT)

My intention was to provide the reader of the Wiki with a list that would make it unnecessary to look at the spec merely to figure out what's not in the spec anymore. But yes, it's a thoughtless process. My problem with "immediate mode" for "legacy OpenGL" is that legacy doesn't only refer to primitive specification. thokra (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2012 (PDT)

Alfonse, regarding your correction that you need at least two API calls to render something, that is true if you take binding into account - and possibly pointer setup. That's fine with me. However, I thought of the case where everything is already bound and setup sp only a draw called has to be issued. In many of my use cases I manage buffer binding and pointer setup as independently from draw code as possible. Should we add some more clarification on this? thokra (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2012 (PDT)

I wasn't sure about the shadow mapping stuff. Have the corresponding extensions been adopted into core at some point? Also, I wasn't sure about the right formatting. I started out with a bulleted list but moved to bold headings. Somehow, both versions don't look too amazing. thokra (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2012 (PDT)